BREAKING: Massive court victory for free speech as Trump’s NPR/PBS defunding scheme is PERMANENTLY BLOCKED as a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Donald Trump has acknowledged that he tried to kill America’s public broadcasting outlets because he doesn't like the news coverage. Now, a federal judge just told him that — all things considered —that's not how America works. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss on Tuesday permanently blocked Trump's executive order to strip all federal funding from NPR and PBS, ruling it flatly unlawful and unenforceable. The reason? The First Amendment. You know — that part of the Constitution Trump's supporters claim to love so much. The judge's ruling was as direct as it gets: Trump's order represents "viewpoint discrimination and retaliation" against news organizations for the content of their journalism. In plain English, the President of the United States tried to financially destroy media outlets because he doesn't like what they report. And a federal court just said that is unconstitutional, full stop. Judge Moss didn't stop there. He noted that the administration couldn't cite a single legal precedent — not one case in American history — where a court had upheld the kind of blanket funding ban Trump tried to impose based on an organization's past speech. Not one. And why did Trump want to defund NPR and PBS in the first place? He told us himself. At a press conference last year he said he would "love to" defund them because he believes they're biased against Republicans. No pretense. No legal justification. Just a president openly admitting he wants to use the government's financial power to punish journalists for coverage he doesn't like. That's not draining the swamp. That's authoritarianism with a media grievance attached to it. NPR, PBS, and public radio stations across the country serve tens of millions of Americans — including millions in rural red-state communities where they are often the only source of local news. Trump's order wouldn't have hurt liberal elites in major cities as much as it would have silenced the voices of small-town America. The plaintiffs' attorney called Tuesday's ruling "a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press." He's right. But let's be clear about what we're celebrating: we're celebrating the fact that our courts are still — for now — holding the line against a president who tried to starve journalism into submission. Please like and share if you believe a free press is worth fighting for!